Judge administers another beatdown to P2P lawyer, severs cases

Multiple federal judges in Chicago have absolutely ripped the tactics of the state's only attorney filing mass P2P file-sharing lawsuits in recent weeks. Now, two new rulings directly contradict a ruling from Judge Beryl Howell, an RIAA lobbyist-turned-federal-judge in Washington, DC, who said that mass subpoenas against alleged file-swappers were proper.

Last week, Judge Blanche Manning of the Northern District of Illinois "severed" two of the P2P suits filed by local attorney John Steele, cutting them down from 1,800 combined defendants to just two. The judge, acting sua sponte (of her own accord, without ruling on a motion), told Steele that he must file a separate lawsuit against every anonymous target of his litigation, not try to combine hundreds of people into a single case.

Manning said that the defendants were "improperly joined" because the defendants weren't engaged in the same "transaction" or "occurrence." She also noted that each one would have a different factual defense, and that Manning could "be faced with dozens if not hundreds of factually unique motions to dismiss, quash, or sever from potential defendants located all over the country with no discernible ties to this district."

She also poured extremely cold water on Steele's entire business model, which to date relies mostly on out-of-state pornographers. Manning noted that the two plaintiffs, Millenium [sic] TGA Inc and CP Productions were based in Hawaii and Arizona, respectively, and most of the defendants are outside Illinois, too. (Indeed, the judge seems particularly annoyed to keep receiving amateur motions to quash from all over the US, noting that she received five of these last week alone.)

Manning also noted that Steele could have used basic geolocation tools to identify likely Illinois defendants before bringing such cases. But when neither the plaintiff nor most defendants are in Illinois, the judge can see "no facts indicating why venue is appropriate in the Northern District of Illinois."

As a result, Manning cut both cases down to a single defendant and ordered Steele to notifying all defendants of her ruling. He must also "cease and desist all efforts to identify the users of the relevant IP addresses" of those who have been severed from the case.

Not going well

John Steele

Separately, a different judge tossed Steele's case on behalf of MCGIP (video: Gloryhole: Dayna Vendetta) back on March 10. The reason? Steele had only filed a copyright registration form on behalf of the film—necessary for litigation—but the film had not actually been registered yet with the Copyright Office. Case dismissed. (After Steele complained, the judge rescinded his order but told Steele he "is ordered to show cause within 14 days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." That hearing has been delayed until later this month.)

Three weeks ago, another Chicago-based federal judge, Milton Shadur, all but called Steele an unethical lawyer as he dismissed yet another of his cases. “I accepted you at your word,” said the judge, pointing to Steele's assertion that the case was connected to Illinois. But, after allowing Steel to take discovery and issue subpoenas to Internet providers, "I start getting motions to quash” from places like Tennessee, Texas, New Jersey, from "people that had nothing at all to do with the state of Illinois.”

“I don't see any justification at all for this action,” the judge concluded, and he had less-than-complimentary things to say about Steele's work. Facts in the case “were not as asserted,” said Shadur, adding that case filings “did not really comply with the subjective and objective good faith requirement."

Steele appears to be a "colorful" character. A former family law attorney, he jumped into P2P litigation last year and almost immediately ended up in litigation with a rival P2P law firm over trademarks. He travels around to porn producer conferences, hoping to drum up business; at a recent event, an eyewitness tells Ars that Steele was on a panel and stepped onto stage with a beer in his hand. When asked about the various recent legal rulings on issues like personal jurisdiction, Steele allegedly responded that they were "mumbo jumbo, chicken gumbo."

Still, despite his setbacks, things could be worse; judges in Texas and West Virginia have severed or dismissed entire sets of cases at once. Steele's have been chopped down to size one or two at a time.

"His cases were doomed"

Even other attorneys who bring such mass file-sharing cases are irritated by Steele's tactics—he's making them look bad. Lawyer Marc Randazza, no stranger to representing porn studios in similar cases, told Ars, "I do not find anything wrong with going after individual torrenters. I do this on behalf of my clients, and I make no apologies for it. However, when you do these cases, you should do them as cleanly as possible—not try to game the system. It seems that the judges feel the same way."

Randazza continued:

At that meeting with him, I warned him that his cases were doomed—that the jurisdictional issues would haunt him, and I also said that if any clients wanted to enter the world of torrent litigation, they probably should use someone who has a history of dealing with copyright issues—not a divorce lawyer who just filed his first case, apparently plagiarized from another firm [as Ars reported]. Steele's reaction was arrogant, to say the least, and he seemed to believe that my comments were based on a concern that he might provide competition for me. That made me laugh. The laugh became even more hearty when I saw how every thing I told him he would suffer came to pass this week.

The law firm Booth Sweet, which has represented numerous file-sharing defendants (including several in the recently dismissed cases), praised last week's rulings, but noted that subpoenas had initially been granted and settlement offers had likely been made.

"While Judge Manning has added to the growing pile of flawed cases tossed by the courts, the plaintiffs (and their lawyers) have raked in untold thousands in settlements from defendants who choose to settle the claims to avoid expensive litigation in a faraway federal court," they wrote last week. "One lesson from Judge Manning’s decision for plaintiffs (and their lawyers) could be: breaking the rules won’t help you make your case. And for people who get threatening letters from plaintiff’s attorneys or notices of impending lawsuits from their ISPs, there’s another lesson: Don’t be intimidated. You can win if you fight back."

62 Reader Comments

Not to go to far afield, but I'd appreciate if Ars kept a rundown of judge's names and locations and how they've ruled on P2P cases. In Chicago, we elect and re-elect judges every two years, and there's very little published information on what these judges have done to keep their seats. The choices on a judge up for re-election are "retain" or "do not retain," and I generally go straight down the list punching "do not retain," being that, in Chicago, you can rarely go wrong throwing out an elected official. If I had a list of p2p-friendly judges, that might sway me in some case.

Let's remember that these details are the fight of the current day. They will barely count as a footnote in history, and won't be remembered a century later like the work of German and British scientists breaking down atomic structures. Do you remember who was running up in the 1977 world series, and did you like that team? It will be like that.

Even other attorneys who bring such mass file-sharing cases are irritated by Steele's tactics—he's making them look bad.

This is possible? If you place several roaches side by side, will the ugliest one make the others seem less attractive?

I'm guessing it might have something to do with precedent being set. Lawyers (and their clients) in such settings could get more and more room by something like the foot in the door technique, making a series of small requests that are increasingly more in favor of plaintiffs. However, Steele is by contrast barging in and turning his requests up to eleven from the start. That's going to shut the door on him and many others that would try similar methods to milk the system.

A class action lawsuit makes a certain sense because many people are wronged by a single defendant. Rather than having a thousand lawsuits, you can have one lawsuit. It recognizes that a thousand small claims might not be worth pursuing individually, but amount to a big problem when combined.

Flipping that around and suing a thousand individuals at once for committing the same alleged infraction seems symmetric, but just isn't. If you were part of the prosecuted class you could face penalties without every appearing in court or possibly even knowing that the court case was under way.

Not to go to far afield, but I'd appreciate if Ars kept a rundown of judge's names and locations and how they've ruled on P2P cases. … If I had a list of p2p-friendly judges, that might sway me in some case.

These cases are being brought in federal court, where judges are appointed, not elected. I'd appreciate a similar list myself, but, unfortunately, we can't influence who rules on these cases through the ballot box.

Randazza's comments are interesting because their group filed a mass lawsuit against a large group of users but they're using the tactic of calling it a conspiracy, ie all the downloaders at those ip addresses conspired to steal the content and, thus, they should all be joined under a single lawsuit. Isn't that gaming the system a bit?

From the Story "a ruling from Judge Beryl Howell, an RIAA lobbyist-turned-federal-judge in Washington, DC, who said that mass subpoenas against alleged file-swappers were proper".

Interesting to know that even federal judges can be bought. I would not have expected it at the federal level, but I guess they need the money just like the Congressmen. Wonder how much they have to pay for a favorable ruling in court? Or does the judge get a cut of the proceeds?

Randazza's comments are interesting because their group filed a mass lawsuit against a large group of users but they're using the tactic of calling it a conspiracy, ie all the downloaders at those ip addresses conspired to steal the content and, thus, they should all be joined under a single lawsuit. Isn't that gaming the system a bit?

Curious -- do you have a link for this?

Interesting side note about Marc Randazza: he was the lawyer for Isaac Eiland-Hall, the guy who created the web site GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com.

Randazza's comments are interesting because their group filed a mass lawsuit against a large group of users but they're using the tactic of calling it a conspiracy, ie all the downloaders at those ip addresses conspired to steal the content and, thus, they should all be joined under a single lawsuit. Isn't that gaming the system a bit?

Curious -- do you have a link for this?

Interesting side note about Marc Randazza: he was the lawyer for Isaac Eiland-Hall, the guy who created the web site GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com.

That's a ridiculous assertion. Everyone knows that it was Bob Saget that raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Not to go to far afield, but I'd appreciate if Ars kept a rundown of judge's names and locations and how they've ruled on P2P cases. … If I had a list of p2p-friendly judges, that might sway me in some case.

These cases are being brought in federal court, where judges are appointed, not elected. I'd appreciate a similar list myself, but, unfortunately, we can't influence who rules on these cases through the ballot box.

Sorry to hear that. I too would also like some sort of, for example, periodic summarizing article on the latest state of such lawsuits (all of them, including that 5 year old one) as there are so many. Good that there are some good judges, else even someone like Steele could extort uninhindered.

I guess Im not sure what is new with this article. Is it just a summary of stuff Ars has already covered? Ive already read all the previous articles about Steele. I was under the impression there was some new development.

They go into a lot of detail about torrenting technology (which isn't completely correct) and in addition to the conspiracy claim, also sight negligence for not securing wireless. So even if you throw in the "I was hacked" argument, they're looking to find you liable for negligence. The claims seem quite out there, hence my viewing Randazza's comments on the other mass lawsuit interesting

They go into a lot of detail about torrenting technology (which isn't completely correct) and in addition to the conspiracy claim, also sight negligence for not securing wireless. So even if you throw in the "I was hacked" argument, they're looking to find you liable for negligence. The claims seem quite out there, hence my viewing Randazza's comments on the other mass lawsuit interesting

One one side how many judges is that now coming out ruling against these lawsuits? On the other side you have one.......Howell. And some people actually have the nerve to suggest that her past ties to lobbying for copyright trolls had nothing to do with her decision in allowing USCG to continue its shakedown scheme.

From the Story "a ruling from Judge Beryl Howell, an RIAA lobbyist-turned-federal-judge in Washington, DC, who said that mass subpoenas against alleged file-swappers were proper".

Interesting to know that even federal judges can be bought. I would not have expected it at the federal level, but I guess they need the money just like the Congressmen. Wonder how much they have to pay for a favorable ruling in court? Or does the judge get a cut of the proceeds?

Not necessarily bought -- perhaps just a victim of years of brainwashing and wrongthink.

Not sure why, but I find it ironically funny that Steele chases the porn industry for business at the same time advertising himself as a divorce lawyer.

At the 2003 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two-thirds of the 350 divorce lawyers who attended said the Internet played a significant role in divorces in the past year, with excessive interest in online porn contributing to more than half of such cases.

So maybe he's trying to drum up business on both ends Kinda a "cum and go" business model

For every judge who does not agree with our suits, two do agree. I'll take that math. And don't forget, NONE of the judges have EVER ruled against us on the merits, they merely told us to file it differently. the FEW dismissals we have had were all for procedural issues. The thieves are understandably trying to avoid responsibility, no one likes to pay money. We will see how it goes.

For every judge who does not agree with our suits, two do agree. I'll take that math. And don't forget, NONE of the judges have EVER ruled against us on the merits, they merely told us to file it differently. the FEW dismissals we have had were all for procedural issues. The thieves are understandably trying to avoid responsibility, no one likes to pay money. We will see how it goes.

-John Steele

I would say that filing differently is a little more involved than you make it out to be, since you have to file individually for each accused infringement that occurred -- which costs you a lot more money.

And as a lawyer when you say "thieves" you really mean copyright infringer's right? Because there's a difference between theft of physical property and infringement, and you know it -- you just like to drum up the feelings people have when you use the word "thief".

A higher level court is going to need to sort this out.. but ideally congress will step in and improve the process such that it's fair to everyone.

Have you seen our Congress? They need to step in and improve THEIR process before they even look at improving this process. So far, the way they decide laws seems inclined to protect the corporate entity's rights and crap all over the consumer's. That IS what unlimited spending on political campaigns will get you, no?

At least Steele is going after what are likely adults downloading porn. Too cheap, too embarrassed, whatever; you got caught in a shakedown. Funny how this suit failed but...

DC Court 1:10-cv-00569-RJL continues when not only are the circumstance the same but the suit is likely targeted at under age kids which makes it even more expensive for innocent people to fight. Unless you live in DC you (responsible for the IP connection) and ?teen (probably family or other court) need to travel across the country doubling the expenses.

Maverick Entertainment is purposely going after those people who would watch or illegally download the movie "Clique". This movie is classified as a "girl tween" movie. Perhaps this is a fishing expedition for finding those genre's that have a willingness to pay more money. If these people settle quickly and at a higher rate maybe we'll see the number of porn downloading lawsuits go down and people like Mr. Steele building a business targeted 12yr old girls as well. I'm sure we'll see the genres jump around a bit in the next few months as lawyers work to find the biggest payout while all lawyers in the business flock to DC where the judges haven't caught up to the rest of the country or...even the UK for the matter.

at a recent event, an eyewitness tells Ars that Steele was on a panel and stepped onto stage with a beer in his hand. When asked about the various recent legal rulings on issues like personal jurisdiction, Steele allegedly responded that they were "mumbo jumbo, chicken gumbo."

Ars Technica has such a strong bias against enforcing copyrights... It is fun to call him a roach, troll, 1-800-Divorce, etc., but p2p piracy is illegal, these people are 100% guilty (except the poor saps caught with open wireless), and Steele was using the most efficient means to nail as many people as possible. Most efficient for everyone involved: the courts, the lawyers, the clients, and the defendants. (Granted, Steele only cares about the dollars coming his way.) These dismissals are procedural setbacks, but if he has to refile against individual does, he will, and he will most likely win in every case. But it may cost the clients money in legal fees, bog down the courts, and the settlements will be much higher.

Ars Technica has such a strong bias against enforcing copyrights... It is fun to call him a roach, troll, 1-800-Divorce, etc., but p2p piracy is illegal, these people are 100% guilty (except the poor saps caught with open wireless), and Steele was using the most efficient means to nail as many people as possible. Most efficient for everyone involved: the courts, the lawyers, the clients, and the defendants. (Granted, Steele only cares about the dollars coming his way.) These dismissals are procedural setbacks, but if he has to refile against individual does, he will, and he will most likely win in every case. But it may cost the clients money in legal fees, bog down the courts, and the settlements will be much higher.

I'm curious as to how you see this is as the most efficient method for the defendents. Also, if you've been paying much attention to the RIAA lawsuits in the past, you'd know that the individual lawsuits are not profitable (blood from a stone and such). With such lawsuits being unprofitable, the courts actually save money and time as well, because only an idiot would file a lawsuit that loses them money, meaning that very soon, there will be no p2p lawsuits.

Also, I love that you said that the people are 100% guilty besides those that are innocent (although you've left out other possible errors), when that applies to all cases. It's somewhat like saying that something is 97% fat free.